Supreme Court on 'Burden of Proof' in Civil Cases

 

INTRODUCTION

 

In the recent case of Debbarma (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 9, the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored the importance of Section 101 and Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that deal with Burden of Proof.

 

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

 

Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that whoever desires the Court to give any judgment regarding any right or liability that is “dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.” Such boundation to prove is said to be the Burden of Proof on that person.

 

On the other hand, Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act states that “the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.” It is in fact a natural corollary of Section 101 that states that anybody desirous of proving a fact must prove that fact himself before the Court. If neither the desirous person nor the opposite party prove that particular fact, then the case of the desirous person dependent on the existence of that fact would fall apart.

 

This could also be understood by a bare perusal of Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act that stipulates that “the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.”

 

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

 

In the case at hand, the Plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit seeking Declaration of Title and Possession with respect to a property. However, as per the facts of the case, no cogent evidence was presented by the Plaintiff that would establish her title over the property and she argued that since the Defendants have not been able to establish their title; therefore, the Suit must be decreed in her favour.  On such grounds and others, the Trial Court decreed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant preferred an appeal before the High Court against such findings by the Trial Court and the High Court allowed the Appeal setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. Aghast by the same, the Plaintiff moved the Supreme Court.

 

HELD BY THE COURT

 

According to the Supreme Court, in a Suit seeking Declaration of Title and Possession with respect to a property, the Defendants cannot be dispossessed unless the Plaintiff is able to establish a better title over the property.

 

This is because a person in possession of a property assumes the character of an ‘owner’ and has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner of that property. In other words, a person in possession would be entitled to protect and save their possession, “unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession.”

 

The Court further explained that as per Section 101 of the Evidence Act, “the burden of proof to establish a title in the present case lies upon the plaintiff as this burden lies on the party who asserts the existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims relief” and even though this rule is not universal and has exceptions, the general principle culled out from Section 101 of the Evidence Act would nevertheless become applicable in the facts of the present case.

 

The Court also discussed Section 102 of the Evidence Act that stipulates that “if both the parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail.” According to the Court, the onus of proof in a case continuously shifts from the Plaintiff to the Defendant and vice versa, but this shifting of onus would happen in a Suit for Title and Possession only when the Plaintiff is able to create a high degree of probability in her favour by adducing appropriate evidence. The Title must be proved, and weakness of the Defendant cannot ipso facto become the strength of the Plaintiff.

 

Since in the facts of the present case, the Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court dismissed the contentions raised by the Plaintiff and upheld dismissal of the Suit.

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

Being a Practitioner on Civil Side, I have often seen the torment suffered by the parties in Civil Suits relating to property disputes. As an Advocate, it is a challenging task to explain to the parties that the weaknesses of their opponents cannot become their strengths. Despite the same, most of the times, the parties instruct their Advocates to contest the Suit with whatever meagre evidence that they have in their favour. The result is what has been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present case.

 

No amount of jugglery of words can change the evidence that is on record. If the evidence is not cogent, the Suit is fait accompli and is destined to fail. Sometimes it takes decades for the parties to realize this, sometimes they do not realize it during their entire lifetime and then their legal heirs are embroiled in the legal proceedings. My only advice to the parties stuck in such Civil Suits is to trust the law, follow the law and not to look around for quick fixes or ways that would bypass the law because in the end, the truth is inevitably found out by the Courts.